In the last year or two we’ve experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?
High gasoline prices discourage driving, but only a little. The main benefit is people tend to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Voters in western economies want their governments to fight climate change. They also do not want to pay any significant cost to fight climate change. And if required to choose between accepting a super-hot climate or paying the cost to prevent a super-hot climate, they will choose to accept the super-hot climate. They’d rather heat the planet than pay more for energy.
================================================
I disagree. The world is already undergoing a major/radical change away from fossil fuels because the public wants it and politicians know they only have a few years left to keep lying to voters. Also the fossil fuels companies know their years are numbered and they are busy getting into alternative energies.
Jaak
I disagree. The world is already undergoing a major/radical change away from fossil fuels because the public wants it and politicians know they only have a few years left to keep lying to voters. Also the fossil fuels companies know their years are numbered and they are busy getting into alternative energies.
I don’t think either part of that statement is true. The world is undergoing a minor, relatively modest change away from fossil fuels - which still comprise the vast majority of the world’s electrical power generation and virtually all of its other energy needs, because the public doesn’t want to pay more for energy in order to internalize the carbon externality.
We are adopting renewables at the margins, which means there’s a lot of opportunity for growth and profit in that business (which is why the fossil majors want in), and which depresses the opportunities for growth in the fossil fuels business. But shifting where marginal new production takes place and changing the production of what is already in place fast enough to matter are two very different things. That’s Smil’s point.
We’re going to do some small, cheap things that aren’t enough to fight climate change - and we’ll pretend that those things are major and radical. And then we won’t do the things that could be enough to fight climate change - because they’re so enormous that they’re effectively impossible.
Albaby
“I disagree.”
Do you have any evidence for disagreeing with the opinion?
You might disagree with those people, but the evidence is clear. People do NOT want to pay more for energy.
As Wendy said, it’s the tragedy of the commons.
Politicians - even Green politicians - are aware that voters will vote them out of office if they do anything that will impose significant costs on them. That’s why a carbon tax - which is necessary but not sufficient to fight climate change - is off the table, even for progressives. Voters won’t support it. Not because fossil fuel companies are evil liars who lie (which is certainly true), but because voters don’t actually want to pay more for energy beyond a trivial amount.
=====================================================
I disagree. Green politicians are gaining ground every day. Germany elected Greens, California elected Greens, EU is passing Green laws, maybe even Canada will start cutting CO2 emissions.
Voters are the ones electing Greens and voters passed Carbon taxes in many states and in Europe.
Voters are pushing the politicians to spend more money to reduce climate change effects. They are sick and tired of massive storms, floods, fires, pollution caused by fossil fuels.
Jaak
The enemies of radical disruptive changes for climate changes aren’t just conservatives or the fossil fuel companies. It’s the public at large.
=======================================================
I disagree. The public at large are not even given a chance to vote. The conservatives and fossil fuel companies will not allow changes to come to pass (even moderate changes little BBB), and they have brain washed a segment of the country into believing that climate change is just a haux.
Jaak
I disagree. Green politicians are gaining ground every day. Germany elected Greens, California elected Greens, EU is passing Green laws, maybe even Canada will start cutting CO2 emissions.
Voters are the ones electing Greens and voters passed Carbon taxes in many states and in Europe.
None of that conflicts with my statements. Greens get elected - and then they don’t even suggest, let alone really push for, the scope of changes that would actually be required to fight climate change.
Again, this is why Greta Thunberg has dismissed these folks - even the government ministers with official portfolio over climate change - as engaging in little but “blah blah blah.” They pass Green laws, but they’re all too weak to have a material impact. They pass carbon taxes (sometimes), but they’re all either too low or too poorly structured to matter.
That’s Smil’s point - they pass things that allow Green supporters (like yourself) to mistakenly believe they’re doing something significant, or even particularly useful, while failing to do any of the things that are necessary. The things that would have to be done in order to actually fight climate change enough to avoid a materially hotter world are things that are so costly that no political group is seriously putting forward.
Albaby
In the last year or two we’ve experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?
=======================================
Gasoline prices have only been higher than usual in the the last 6 months.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&…
I think we will see gasoline usage drop in direct proportion to the price of gasoline. CO2 emissions are directly related to gasoline consumption.
We do not have gasoline consumption data for the last 6 months, but here are the numbers for 2021 and first two months of 2022.
Jaak
“Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die.”
Probably true, just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.
==============================================
It will be true in Europe and USA by 2050. I will take longer for the rest of the world.
Jaak
You might disagree with those people, but the evidence is clear. People do NOT want to pay more for energy.
============================================================
The evidence in California, New York, and Europe is that people will and do pay more for energy because they want to get rid of fossil fuels. If California can do it then the rest of the world can follow.
Californians are buying solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, energy storage, electric vehicles, home batteries, upgrades to buildings for efficient low carbon energy, and many other innovations for energy savings.
Californians figured out that you can pay less for energy by using less energy in many ways. Going to the grocery store or commuting to work in Ford F-150, F-250 or F-350 is wasteful, but in Texas they do it because of macho image. In California EVs and Hybrids are used more than in any other state per capita.
Jaak
The evidence in California, New York, and Europe is that people will and do pay more for energy because they want to get rid of fossil fuels. If California can do it then the rest of the world can follow.
People are willing to pay a little more for energy. They are not willing to pay enough more for energy to matter.
They reconcile that reality with their desire to save the planet by pretending that the small amount they are willing to pay more for energy is enough to materially affect climate change. It is not. Which is why the types of proposals that could materially affect climate change (like a really large carbon tax) never get proposed even by very liberal governments (like that of California). Because even in California, they know that a carbon tax big enough to matter is one big enough to get them voted out of office.
Albaby
One more comment that the good professor made at the very end of his interview. He said: “It’s going to be at least 2 degrees C warmer, and it may well be 3 degrees or more.”
I hold the view that we’re focusing too much on decarbonization and not enough on defense against a significantly warmer climate.
Can Miami be defended with dikes? How about Boston or NYC - or other major oceanside metropolises? Those steps are also going to take a long time to define, fund, and implement. Where are the studies on that in the public mind? And steps to implement? Must populations be relocated?
What about agriculture? Which major producing areas will fade away at 2C or 3C scenarios? Where will the replacement fool supply come from?
What new seeds will be needed to better cope with higher temperatures and perhaps diminished water supplies? Are those developments underway? With sufficient funding?
What populations will have to be relocated for lack of food and water? Who will be responsible?
Given the outlook reinforced by this thread that decarbonization efforts will not be sufficient to avoid 2+C higher temperatures, these are just some of the questions that come to mind. How do we prepare?
I hold the view that we’re focusing too much on decarbonization and not enough on defense against a significantly warmer climate.
What’s the defense against the oceans boiling off?
intercst
What’s the defense…
The same as always!
The moment when Al Gore during the Prez debates was unfortunately and stupidly audibly heard to sigh upon hearing W Bush’s swashbuckling ignorance on GCC, I knew we were gonna be screwed for decades to come with no escape.
david fb
We’re going to do some small, cheap things that aren’t enough to fight climate change - and we’ll pretend that those things are major and radical.
I think the world is ready to accelerate the pace of change to Green energy. Solar is now cheaper than oil. There is NO reason to replace your HVAC going forward with gas vs. Solar?
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fossil-Fu…
MarkR: 1. Carbon tax
In the last year or two we’ve experience an effective over 100% carbon tax (at least for vehicle carbon usage). How much do you think that will reduce overall CO2 emissions, and over what period of time?
The tax started at $20 per ton in 2019 and rose $10 per ton each year until reaching $50 per ton in 2022. The goal, in part, is for Canada to meet its obligation to the Paris Agreement. That means cutting Canada's carbon pollution by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.Apr 7, 2022
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services…
How carbon pricing works
Information on Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system
“Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other renewables will rule the future with a little help from nuclear. Coal, oil, and nat gas will wither and die.”
Probably true, just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.
I suspect that coal, oil, and methane will outlast fossil fuels by at least a century.
However (a) that’ll be almost entirely for uses other than burning them for energy, and (b) first we gotta find more efficient (and faster) ways to synthesize them from air, water, and sunlight than nature has come up with.
On the latter, it’ll help that producing them is not one of nature’s goals - there’s no evolutionary pressure on plants to turn into oil faster.
People are willing to pay a little more for energy. They are not willing to pay enough more for energy to matter.
They reconcile that reality with their desire to save the planet by pretending that the small amount they are willing to pay more for energy is enough to materially affect climate change. It is not. Which is why the types of proposals that could materially affect climate change (like a really large carbon tax) never get proposed even by very liberal governments (like that of California). Because even in California, they know that a carbon tax big enough to matter is one big enough to get them voted out of office.
Albaby
===============================================================================
You keep saying this but where is your backup that says the current efforts at reducing CO2 emissions is not enough to affect climate change?
California and some other states and countries are measurably reducing their CO2 emissions. These states and countries are not pretending anything. Their goals are to meet the UN climate change targets. They have passed carbon tax rules, renewable energy rules, electric vehicle rules, and many other rules to reduce CO2 emissions.
This is all work in progress which is reducing CO2 emissions. And as more and more requirements become mandatory more and more CO2 emissions are eliminated.
Jaak
What’s the defense against the oceans boiling off?
To stop consuming disaster porn (what Wendy might call click bait).
As you may know, the earth has been generally cooling for the last 50 million years and during the last 3-5 million years. Overall, there are three basic states for climate – hothouse, icehouse and in between. The icehouse state is characterized by ice at the poles, so you know where we find ourselves now. In fact, the Little Ice Age period which ended a couple of centuries ago was the coldest in several hundred million years.
At any rate, the oceans have never boiled off.
DB2
Also we do not need fossil fuels are for cement or steel.
For steel sector, China’s decarbonization is a costly quest
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight…
China’s lofty ambitions to hit peak carbon emission by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 have pushed major Chinese steelmakers to chart a greener route to production as they increasingly become interested in developing direct reduced iron, or DRI, plants using hydrogen and natural gas. But rising decarbonization costs and the expected dominance of traditional blast furnace-converter route in the Chinese steel industry for the foreseeable future is set to slow the sector’s transition…Reducing emissions at blast furnace-converter route would also be costly and challenging…
Carbon-free steel refers to the production of one metric ton of steel that emits less than 0.5 mt of CO2, which means steelmaking in blast furnace-converter route will need to cut its carbon emissions by over 80%…Production costs will soar, requiring more than $150/mt extra to produce iron, compared to iron that comes from conventional blast furnaces, according to Baosteel data…
China last year came out with mandatory output cut measures, a short-term but effective solution to control emissions. Steel output cuts will prevent the steel industry’s carbon emissions from rebounding…
DB2